In message <20010423131643-r01010600-6fcf2ed6@38.32.91.42>
"D. Kirkpatrick" <nat@tiac.net> wrote:
[faq server]
> In any event, this news suggests that the whole FAQ approval and
> maintenance process is more in trouble than previously advanced here?
No, just that at the moment no one understands the exact mechanics of the FAQ
server [1]. Although its basic premise is simple, the people who initially
wrote and maintained it have long since stopped being *.answers moderators.
Until one of us gets some time to examine the code for it and work out why
it's currently failing so often (hopefully this will be soon), this will
remain the case.
[1] This might be a lie; I don't know how much Ping knows about it...
Cheers,
Nick
-- Spam will rise. Newsgroups will flamewar. You too will become an oldbie. And when you do, you'll fantasise that when you were a newbie, spam was rare, newsgroups were harmonious, and people read the FAQs. -- Charlie Meigh, "Trust me on the backups"************************************************************* To unsubscribe send a message to majordomo@faqs.org as
unsubscribe faq-maintainers fill-in-your-email-address-here *************************************************************
[
FAQ Archive |
Search FAQ Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet References
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997 |
1998 |
1999 |
2000
]
© Copyright The Internet FAQ Consortium, 1997-2000
All rights reserved